Criminal justice panel hashes out potential changes to Kansas offender registry

Kansas has started the conversation about making changes to the registry, but they still have a long way to go. Kansas does not have residency restrictions.

The good part of the discussion:

• The Council of State Governments found that requiring an offender to register did not reduce recidivism.
• The penalty for failing to register is too strong. There are 423 people in Kansas in prison for failing to register, causing bed space to be unnecessarily occupied in correctional facilities.

The bad part of the discussion:

• The Kansas Supreme Court ruled this past Friday that requiring lifetime registration is NOT PUNITIVE! How can this be with all the evidence that the registry is punitive:  the shaming process of public notification, restrictions to employment and foreign travel, passports branded, reporting requirements, being marginalized, restricted where they can go, banishment, no public housing assistance, barred from most homeless and emergency shelters, limited access to education, victims of vigilantism, and on and on and on?
• A suggestion was given by Patrick Armstrong, of the Council of State Governments, that consideration needs to be given to allowing people who exhibit good behavior to have an avenue off the registry, DEPENDING ON THE CRIME. No!  Why should anyone be required to remain on the registry if they have served out their sentence and are now law-abiding citizens?  Where in the constitution does it say that the crime should determine any of this?

At least Kansas is starting the conversation, something that Florida has yet to do.  This is why we need to better educate our legislators.  FAC is working on doing just that and will soon be asking for our members’ help.

SOURCE